Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

TOS is fairly consistent within itself and just about holds together. It's only with later incarnations that problems start to arise, beginning with TMP:

DECKER: NASA. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Jim, this was launched more than three hundred years ago.

That would put TMP into the 2280s at least, assuming the Voyager series continued (which it didn't of course)

The most consistent TOS dating puts it in the early years of the 23rd Century.

Unless Decker was just lousy at history?

You're being too forgiving. TOS is not consistant with itself. At all. References dating the show vary from 200 to 900 years in our future, for starters. The design of the ship changes from shot to shot (when the pilot footage is reused). Yet as a fan you let it all slide.

I admit, I am more forgiving of TOS than later incarnations

But dating-wise, that 900 year ref is a one-off and not too difficult to explain (post#36).
200 years is a much more quoted figure.

At for the models, that's a whole different kettle of fish and is addressed here.

In the same way all the inconsistancies in TOS can be explained away or glossed over, so can the ones in STXI.

They even released the Countdown comic book that went to great lengths to explain the weird look of Nero and the Narada, and reconcile them with TNG (I'm quite fond of the tattoo backstory and Borgified Nerada ideas they came up with)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say a quite a few here were upset by the changed assumptions in Enterprise, too
(I admit, even I rolled my eyes when a Romulan bird of prey decloaked...)

The idea of having a rebooted universe rebooted in the same film is insane. For this reason alone, it must be TOS Spock.

Exactly. The producers and writers intended for Spock to come from the Prime Universe. Period. There would be no reason to have him in the film otherwise. Any other fanon ideas about an alternate universe is just someone's opinion, based on very shaky evidence. Saying 'things don't look the same as in the Prime Universe" is not a valid excuse. It can be argued that the entire series of ENTERPRISE doesn't fit within what's known about the Prime Universe in the 22nd century, but it was still what the creators intended, and there's no way around that (and believe me, nothing would make me happier than to learn that ENT was not part of the accepted canon).

Someone else posted a thread essentially saying the same thing you are, but using Nero and his crew as the subject. His hypothesis? Because they didn't have hair, they weren't Romulans from the Prime Universe (never minding that both Nero's wife and another female crew member did have hair, it's quite a flimsy argument).

I choose otherwise, when I watch Star Trek or any other show I want everything I see and hear to be "in universe." Not the producer/directors/writers did this or it only a TV show or those are just the FX of the day. What is on the screen is actual what is happening in the story.

Spock knows what Jim Kirk looked like when Kirk took command of the Enterprise because Spock was already aboard at the time. As a senior lieutenant (or lieutenant commander) he would have been one of the first people on board the Enterpise to meet Kirk. They were long time friends, Kirk wasn't just some guy he was meeting in a cave whos age he was guessing.

Now sure, the wise and powerful Robau could have meant "point zero four." He could have been using verbal shorthand. I can refer to the year as "oh nine" or "ninety-eight." But what we heard on screen was a six digit stardate. This is just one of the many clues that we're watch a non-TOS universe.

Remember, what JJ Abrams says in interviews and what the writers intended isn't canon. What's on screen is.

You must have read my mind T'Girl, because when I read Dukhat's post mentioning Romulan baldness as "proof" of an alternate universe I was sorely tempted to reply "You think that's bad? I read someone using stardates as an excuse to put STXI in another universe"

I don't need JJ and friends to tell me it's TOS Spock. It simply is. As stated earlier, the arguments against it being TOS Spock could be used to split TOS into several universes, let alone the rest of the Trek franchise.

I think Delta Vega being in the Vulcan system is PLENTY enough to establish that this is a totally different universe.

Or some planet renaming took place.

And so wouldn't it have been renamed with a Vulcan name if it's in the Vulcan system? Clearly Abrams tossed in all sorts of trek derived references with little thought about any logical consistency. He just wanted a slam-bam action movie with some familiar names. Fair enough for a reboot, but that still doesn't make it consistent with what had already been established. And as a reboot why is it even necessary to try connecting to TOS? Because he wanted some connection of legitimacy. But he fucked it up.

That doesn't take anything away from those who enjoy the film, but it is in contradiction whatever he may or may not of "intended."